Just A Thought Re: Vernacular

[CamoPirate]

Reading about a lot of the black bear bill, ban on using hounds in multiple states, etc., combined with how everyone wants to appease people that don't hunt, wouldn't fixing terms like "hunting with hounds" do a lot more good than trying to convince people that "hunting with hounds" isn't barbaric.

As hunters, we know that means you use the help of hounds to tree the animal, better identify age and gender, take better and cleaner shots, resulting in quick kills. However, if you weren't a hunter and read "hunting with hounds", it sounds like we let the dogs loose to tear the bear/mountain lion apart. Also funny, it's never mentioned fish and game "hunts with hounds" to remove said problem bears when Weiner stated "hunting has no effect on population sizes near communities where bear conflicts are common, because hunting is impractical or off limits in those areas".

Just a thought on how re-framing this whole scenario would help in the long haul. On the flip side, some of these people are lunatics and will never let it go. I don't want to eat only vegetables for the rest of my life, but I'm also not at their local plant nursery screaming at them with ribeye steaks in both hands. Idk food for thought. Hopefully meat.

 

[weaver]

IDK I think it's ultimately a lost cause in CA. Hunting laws should not be dictated ballot box biology PERIOD.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[CamoPirate]

I agree; I also think people that don't put up money for conservation/habitat should have a say. Most people I run into in Portland complain about having to pay for a wilderness pass at like 8$? But hunting money goes towards those projects. I don't feel those people should have a say either.

But the reality is we do have to deal with ballot box biology, whether we like it or not, that's democracy for you. That's why I brought up changing terms for swaying masses that are ignorant.